Would the Nuremberg Trials have fared any better if only

Ask yourself why would that be, and think for a few minutes, dumbass.

>how can anyone call the elections rigged if only 90% and not 100% of the votes went to dear leader? Checkmate atheists!

Do you know why they executed him? Did you ever read the verdict?

I think there's a good case to be made that there should have been no death penalty and that it would have been better to just put those men in prison. It would have been very beneficial to historians. Also, it would have helped to prevent neo-Nazism because, among other reasons, there would have been more leaders admitting to the Holocaust in contexts where it would be difficult to suggest that they were coerced.
The only real reason to apply the death penalty in such cases is to discourage others. However, I'm not sure that this actually does much in practice or that this good outweighs the bad of the other.

that makes no sense. If it was a show trial, then why would some people found not guilty user?

Yes, he was literally killed for talking shit about the Jews. Literally executed for "hate speech".

I don't think it was a show trial - however, obviously the fact that some were found innocent doesn't necessarily make it not a show trial. Finding some people innocent in a show trial serves an important propaganda purpose - it makes people think that the trial isn't a show trial.

>Finding some people innocent in a show trial serves an important propaganda purpose - it makes people think that the trial isn't a show trial.

thats retarded user, now anyone can claim literally any case was a show trial.

He was hanged for "infecting the German mind with the virus of anti-Semitism" and he fully deserved it for all his lies in Der Sturmer. It's possible that without his tabloid NSDAP wouldn't be that popular.

>death penalty for spreading anti-semitism
Jews literally believe you deserve to get killed if you hate them.

The Nazis were some of the worst criminals in the history of mankind. They certainly deserved death.

I'm not a Jew. Streicher still deserved death penalty.

>hanging someone because he's an antisemite
>cuckies jerk themselves raw

As user said, he was a retard but the worst he deserved was a life sentence

No he did not. He was objectively innocent.

Sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean killing them was a good idea. There are more factors that it might be worthwhile to consider. I'm opposed to capital punishment in general. Too much chance of killing an innocent person. But in the case of the Nazis, there's also the political aspect to consider. Killing those people helped to encourage the neo-Nazi idea that they were hushed up.

>Last words were "Purimfest 45!"

Jews just can't take the banter

You are a dumbass. Thanks to his propaganda people saw Jews as parasites that should be destroyed.

That's a rather fascist way to look at law. I'm no fan of Streicher, but putting people to death for writing things is authoritarian nonsense. Liberal societies should be better than that.

>innocent
Poisoning thousands of minds with the virus of anti-Semitism should be treated like a crime. His lies influenced many young people who later joined Hitlerjugend, SA or NSDAP.
People responsible for spreading stab-in-the-back myth also deserved death sentence.

And? You would've had to hung half of Germany if that were the only reason.

I hate Nazis, but that's a ridiculous way of looking at things. "Hurr durr let's stop totalitarianism by being totalitarian." Nonsense.

These are nu-liberals you're arguing with, they'd burn down the world if they thought it was progressive

>you deserve death for spreading antisemitism
The audacity of you kikes is unheard of. If you can't actually make a disctinction between speech and actions, you're a lost case.

Maybe it wasn't such a bad decision considering how many war criminals got scot-free. Largely because a lot of West Germany's lawyers and judges were former Nazis.

>>Would the Nuremberg Trials have fared any better...

Hold it. Expose exactly WHAT the goals of the Nurenburg trials are and should have been.

Oh fuck off. I think that he's wrong, but you're a retard when you rattle off this "if you disagree with me you're a kike" bullshit. Just typical stormfag thinking from you.

I quite honestly don't give a fuck what you think.

Then get the fuck off a board that is meant for discussion and go back to your safe space, you retard.

Only a Jew is this bloodthirsty

>safe space
Said the guy triggered over the word kike.

Then I guess the Nazis were... Jews? Whoa.

I'm not triggered by the word "kike", I'm triggered by the idiotic stormfag logical fallacy.

This was a real farce, not Nuremberg trials.

>Between 1949 and 1973, 90 of the West German Justice Ministry’s 170 leading judges and lawyers were former members of the Nazi party, according to the government report.
>In 1957, 77% of the ministry's senior officials were former Nazis

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_of_the_Polish_Post_Office_in_Danzig#Court_martials

> Giesecke and Bode were never held responsible for this episode or held accountable for the executions. They were denazified after the war and continued their careers as lawyers in Germany. Both died of natural causes in the 1970s. Only in 1997–98 did the German court at Lübeck (the Große Strafkammer IIb and the Dritte Große Strafkammer) invalidate the 1939 Nazi sentence, citing among the reasons that the special military penal law had only taken effect in Danzig on November 16, 1939 and charged the presiding judge with negligence of his duties.
And that's only one example.

>calling someone a kike is a logical fallacy

What did Speer do? He didn't even know about the Holocaust happening

The logical fallacy is calling the person who wrote this: a kike just because he wrote it. Unless, of course, by "kike" you just mean "somebody I don't like".

Finally you understand

>some of the worst criminals in the history of mankind
Holy shit have you not looked at any history beyond the superficial propaganda that's been shoved down your throat?
The Nazis committed acts that were on par with a vast number of groups throughout history.

So he said, at least. I'm advocating against having applied the death penalty, but I'm not convinced that Speer knew nothing.

He knew about it very well. He also knew about slave labor and used it for his projects.

Well, that's probably why he said "some of".

Only a kike would demand blood of everyone who dares being anti-semitic. No other people chimp out over it like this, speaking from experience. There's a fine difference between "people who kill jews should be killed" and "people who think killing jews is good should be killed".

Yeah no shit you gormless mong, everyone of importance was in the Nazi party, there was no other way of getting ahead.

The Nazis started the worst war in human history.

>Only
The absolute word is unjustified. It's probably more likely that a Jew would react in such a way, but to say that "only" a Jew would is ridiculous.

see I 100% agree that the Holocaust happened and muh 6 gorillion but it's not unheard of to claim that the Nuremberg Trials were nothing but victor's justice
the Allies wanted to nail the Germans for the fucked up shit they did and also wanted to cover up their own war crimes

Except that's clearly not true. And some of these lawyers and judges (34) were not only in NSDAP, but also in SA.

>some of
>vast number of groups

>autism

That's mostly neo-Nazi propaganda.
>were nothing but victor's justice
Modern historians do not think this.

It's a history board. Details are important.

With regard to Nuremburg, my dad has stated that if he had had appropriate military command on the event of Goering's suicide, that he would have arranged /to have had Goering's dead body hanged anyway/. The point being that you don't escape your sentence, what has been meted out to you.

Naturally, I am inclined to agree with this hindsight-position, though the point of it would be to stage for the world that he doesn't escape justice on account of a :^)-tier opt-out. The body should still be publically humiliated. The practical mechanics of this might require that that the trunk be propped up so as not to separate unduly from the head, but then I'm not too familiar with the physics of hanging a corpse.

It takes at least 2 to go to war. And define "worst" war

>It takes at least 2 to go to war.
Wut

>victor's justice
when looking at the Nuremberg Trials from an unbiased perspective, charges were lobbed against the accused and their sentences were already figured out
no one disputes that the Nazis on trial for war crimes at Nuremberg deserved it, save for probably Kurt Gerstein who was accused of war crimes despite being the only Nazi to beg the Swedes and the Pope himself to do something about the gas chambers
but the trials themselves were nothing but a sham to get the Nazis lock, stock, and barrel
as far as modern court procedure goes, the Nuremberg Trials weren't really up to snuff
not to mention that not a single member of the Allied command went to trial for the bombing of civilians all over Germany (Dresden, Berlin, etc) or the indiscriminate killing of POWs - both of which the Allies accused the Nazis of but never accused their own people

Germany started WW2 and commited terrible war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

>"worst" war
More people died than in any other war before.

This.

You're obviously talking to alt-right shitheads though who believe racism, misogyny, homophobia and transphobia is not a crime. They too will get what they deserve at some point.

>unbiased perspective
But you're clearly biased.
>accused and their sentences were already figured out
And that's why some of them were acquitted?
>Kurt Gerstein
Nothing to do with Nuremberg.

They didn't accept hearsay into evidence.

The actual answer is that they should have tried a small number of Allied officers or decisionmakers as war criminals (for example, the officer who ordered the USAAF to attack the Laconia U-Boat while it was rescuing survivors). They would not even have to convict them, just go through the motions to establish that they are holding themselves to a similar standard. Of course the Soviets would never in a million years have gone along with this and it would have been nearly impossible to get the US or British Army to sit still for it either.

>Germany started WW2 and commited terrible war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide
The only part of that that is unique to Germany is the "starting WW2", and it's debatable that they were the only ones that can blamed for the start of WW2.
So many people died because:
A) it was a World War (more people involved)
B) technology was the most advanced it had ever been (duh) but especially military technology
C)the concept of a "war crime" did not exist prior to the end of WW2, but acts that were the equivalent of war crimes had been a staple of war since the dawn of civilization

Can you be any more transparent with the false flagging, Adolf?

>But you're clearly biased
How? You gonna call me a /pol/tard and call me a Nazi apologist even though I'm not doubting anything about the Holocaust except the jurisprudence of the Nuremberg Trials (of which there was none up until that point)?
>And that's why some of them were acquitted?
An alibi is an alibi.
>Nothing to do with Nuremberg
He was accused of war crimes and was slated to stand trial but committed suicide before he could. He is an example of a Nazi who actually tried to alert the world of the genocide but was instead accused of war crimes and couldn't take that slap in the face.
The Allies could have at least TRIED to apply similar standards but they did not.

>C)the concept of a "war crime" did not exist prior to the end of WW2, but acts that were the equivalent of war crimes had been a staple of war since the dawn of civilization

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_1907

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_1907

t. actual false-flagging Nazi

Nuremberg trials were not the only Nazi trials. Gerstein was not big enough to be sentenced at Nuremberg.

Many laws and whatnot were added/revised around/after WW2.

For example?

Der Sturmer wasn't actually that popular with any audience outside of teenage boys and perverts. Even among the Nazi leadership, Streicher was universally hated.

It was only kept publishing on Hitler's intervention. Der Angriff, the official NSDAP newspaper was far more widely read.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime
>following WW2, major developments were made

>The Allies could have at least TRIED to apply similar standards but they did not
But their crimes and Nazi crimes are hardly comparable.

Have you even seen the evidence presented at Nuremberg?

Such as?

>reddit*r Harris bombing Dresden
>A-OK
>Streicher spergs out about Jews
>death penalty

Really jogs the noggin

>death penalty
He deserved it.

WW2 started when Germans bombed Wieluń killing more than 1000 civilians.

>Der Sturmer wasn't actually that popular with any audience outside of teenage boys and perverts.
So Hitlerjugend and SA.

There were only 1400 or so krauts prosecuted in post ww2 krautland.

1400 out of 1.7 million nazis.

Please tell me, how many germans were prosecuted for the blitz?
what's that?
ZERO?

DO IT AGAIN

Calm down Shlomo they can't get you anymore

Pretty much. But neither of those groups held that much in the way of power.

Der Sturmer didn't really inspire anyone to take part in the Holocaust because virtually no one took it seriously, it was just part of the general anti-Semitic fervor of the time.

That said, Streicher pretty much dug his own grave by continuing to spout /pol/-tier bullshit rather than actually defend himself.

>not to mention that not a single member of the Allied command went to trial for the bombing of civilians all over Germany
If people should be judged over strategic bombing in WW2, courts would be full for the rest of the century.

>or the indiscriminate killing of POWs
By Soviets?

T. Zionist kike shill
Just accept that Trump is President already lmao